Russell T Davies yes/no

[Jax]

I've never understood why Moffat got a pass for The Doctor saving himself from the Pandorica. I thought that was worse than the Archangel network, mainly cause they resolved such a huge cliffhanger so poorly.

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey

To be honest I wasn't entirely happy with that but I enjoyed the rest of the episode and I watch Doctor Who for silly fun so I couldn't really care too much about it.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Rose - YES
The End of the World - YES
Aliens of London/World War Three - YES. I've never been bothered by the Slitheen the way most fans are.
The Long Game - YES. Unremarkable but innoffensive.
Boom Town - YES
Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways - YES
The Christmas Invasion - YES. It's mostly pretty dull until the Doctor finally wakes up.
New Earth - NO, tentatively. I need to watch it again.
Tooth and Claw - YES
Love and Monsters - NO. Dear god no! Kill me! Kill me now!
Army of Ghosts/Doomsday - YES
The Runaway Bride - YES
Smith and Jones - yes
Gridlock - NO. It feels like being stuck in a traffic jam for an hour.
Utopia - yes
The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords - YES. It's mostly great, but I agree that Jesus-Doctor is a bit much.
Voyage of the Damned - YES. Where did all the hate for this one come from?
Partners in Crime - YES
Midnight - YES. Hell yes! This one episode practically redeems RTD's entire tenure, IMO.
Turn Left - NO. I appreciate what it's trying to do but it's just too depressing.
The Stolen Earth/Journey's End - YES. It's a clusterfuck with a bad ending but I'm a sucker for crossovers.
The Next Doctor - NO. Yes to the first part but the giant robot really kills it for me.
Planet of the Dead - YES. But it's not really "special" enough to be a special, is it?
The Waters of Mars - NO. It's got a lot of great ideas and a creepy monster but Tennant ruins the ending with his trademark overacting.
The End of Time - NO. Between Tennant & John Simm, there's enough overacting here to last a lifetime.

18 yes
7 no

 

[TedShatner10]

I'd take those over the ridiculous mess of "The Big Bang" any day.

Hmmmm, I agree that "The Big Bang" is not so-much better than "Last of the Time Lords" in terms of internal plot logic, but it's much better in tone and less mean spirited, with the Doctor not almost intentionally subjecting himself and his immediate companions to 365 days of imprisonment, torture, and bullying at the hands of the Master.

 

[cloneof]

Rose - no
The End of the World - yes (though only becouse when I saw this at Animecon, it was the first episode of Doctor Who and at the time I only had Star Trek to compare it to. Not to say that Star Trek is bad, but instead diffrente from the more Starfleet kinda scifi I had enjoyed.)
Aliens of London/World War Three - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fart aliens.
The Long Game - no
Boom Town - no
Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways - no
The Christmas Invasion - no
New Earth - no
Tooth and Claw - no
Love and Monsters - yes
Army of Ghosts/Doomsday - yes
The Runaway Bride - no
Smith and Jones - no
Gridlock - no
Utopia - yes
The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords - no
Voyage of the Damned - no
Partners in Crime - no
Midnight - no
Turn Left - no
The Stolen Earth/Journey's End - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, enough of Daleks thank you very much.
The Next Doctor - no
Planet of the Dead - no
The Waters of Mars - no, but I loved the ending.
The End of Time - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, why in the world would anyone want to put Rassilon of all people back in to action? Why would anyone want to destroy one of the most standing pillars of the old Doctor Who series, wich was the Time Lords and their own little way of being annoying and morally bankrupt. Why would anyone want the reason for Tennant's regeneration be a door problem or the wierd over-streching "bye-bye" walk for friends. I had so high expectations for this episode, even going as far as when Rassilon shouted "for Victory" to believe that the Enemy would return and the Time Lords would return to fight it and restore themselfs to their old ways, but as he shouted "and the end of time ITSELF", I more or less hoped that 10th Doctor would get at least a fighting send-off.

 

[GabeHimself]

Rose - No
The End of the World - Yes
Aliens of London/World War Three - No
The Long Game - Yes
Boom Town - Yes
Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways - Yes
The Christmas Invasion - Yes
New Earth - No
Tooth and Claw - No
Love and Monsters - YES
Army of Ghosts/Doomsday - Yes
The Runaway Bride - Yes
Smith and Jones - No
Gridlock - No
Utopia - Yes
The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords - YES
Voyage of the Damned - Yes
Partners in Crime - Yes
Midnight - YES - His best
Turn Left - Yes
The Stolen Earth/Journey's End - Yes
The Next Doctor - No
Planet of the Dead - No
The Waters of Mars - Yes
The End of Time - Yes

There's opinion and then there's actual criticism. Not liking a story is one thing, there's a choice there. Irrationally hating something that is well written is another.

All of RTD's stories contain an emotional resonance that has rarely been matched in modern science fiction.

I found it funny that the OP missed the entire point of a lot of these episodes focusing instead on the plot and not the characterization. The Doctor is an immortal Time Lord that has been continuously used in fiction since 1963. That RTD can craft a story to take HIM on an emotional journey of growth and change when the character has been static for so long is a tribute to a GREAT WRITER. You don't like it, fine. But don't call him a hack because he's had more original thoughts, ideas and executions than any contemporary.

Save your accusations of hackery for the writers of Lost.

 

[GabeHimself]

Moffat's more disciplined about plot logic than Davies, no doubt about it. His writing is probably the most successful element of the post-Davies era.

I disagree. And I'll see if I can turn you around to my point of view with a few questions:

- Who built the Pandorica?
- Who spread the stories of the Pandorica that The Doctor spouted?
- Why put The Doctor in the Pandorica to prevent him from destroying the universe and not just kill him?

The Pandorica Opens is not based on characterization it's based on TWISTS. That's lousy writing in my opinion.

 

[The]

- Who built the Pandorica?

The Doctor's enemies.

- Who spread the stories of the Pandorica that The Doctor spouted?

The Doctor's enemies.

- Why put The Doctor in the Pandorica to prevent him from destroying the universe and not just kill him?

Because they tried to kill him outright for fifty-years of the show, and it has never worked out for them. Thus, logic would dictate they try a new approach. And it worked.

So, no, I don't follow your train of thought. Moffat's plots are always much tighter, smarter, and better executed that RTD's ever were. Nostalgia for RTD's era means little in the light of what he actually wrote...

 

[Bacl]

^^
Yeah, they've noticed that if you kill the Doctor he manages to come back. Also, kill him and he still exists at every past point in time prior to you killing him. Best not to risk that. Instead, create a prison so strong you can't even escape it by dying.

I did have a bit of a problem with the Doctor essentially getting himself out of the Pandorica by pulling a Bill & Ted. Instead, I'd like to imagine a slight change:

a) In "The Pandorica Opens" the Doctor emphasizes that the Pandorica would be a snap to open from the outside, a simple click of his screwdriver would do this. Of course, he wants to keep it locked, not open it up...but a simple click of the sonic would open it.

b) When being dragged into the Pandorica the Doctor fumbles for his screwdriver, which falls helplessly to the floor.

c) When the Doctor visits Rory he DOES NOT give him his sonic, and does not say he is in the Pandorica. In fact, he confuses Rory by saying "I can't tell you where I am because that would mean I got myself out. Up to you. Figure it out on your own, for Amy, and the universe. Rory Williams, the fate of creation lies in your being clever, just this once."

d) Rory goes downstairs looking for the Doctor, sees the afterimages of the alliance forces, the screwdriver on the ground, and just barely barely figures it out to open the Pandorica.

Anyway, that'd be my little patch up to keep everything the same but tweak it so the Doctor didn't let himself out.

 

[GabeHimself]

- Who built the Pandorica?

The Doctor's enemies.

- Who spread the stories of the Pandorica that The Doctor spouted?

The Doctor's enemies.

- Why put The Doctor in the Pandorica to prevent him from destroying the universe and not just kill him?

Because they tried to kill him outright for fifty-years of the show, and it has never worked out for them. Thus, logic would dictate they try a new approach. And it worked.

So, no, I don't follow your train of thought. Moffat's plots are always much tighter, smarter, and better executed that RTD's ever were. Nostalgia for RTD's era means little in the light of what he actually wrote...

So they built something that could withstand the destruction of the universe. But they themselves could not -- as evidenced by the Stone Daleks and Cybermen. Nevermind how human civilization could exist without stars.

Your argument is unconvincing to me, sorry. I think Moffat wrote plot based stories. RTD wrote character driven stories. That's why Moffat's Who is so lacking in humanity.

 

[Cyke101]

So they built something that could withstand the destruction of the universe. But they themselves could not -- as evidenced by the Stone Daleks and Cybermen.

I'm not quite sure I follow this argument. I mean, we could also say that the Doctor could grow a TARDIS or fix something so that he can time travel, but he himself could not -- as evidenced by all the times he was trapped in another time period separate from the TARDIS. That's not really a weakness of the Doctor or of the writing, is it?

Also, in the face of Vincent and the Doctor, the Lodger, and A Christmas Carol, as well as Rory subplot for the series (could we ever see Mickey or Martha or Rose going to such lengths as this guy?), this is the first time I've ever seen anyone accuse Moffat of lacking humanity. So perhaps humanity isn't the word you're looking for. They may be sappy and sentimental at times sure, but sentimentality requires a rather large degree of humanity.

 

[Sci]

I think Moffat wrote plot based stories. RTD wrote character driven stories. That's why Moffat's Who is so lacking in humanity.

I think it's fair to say that Moffat puts a stronger emphasis on plot than did RTD and that RTD sometimes put a stronger emphasis on character than does Moffat -- I say sometimes because some Moffat scripts, such as "The Doctor Dances"/"The Empty Child," "The Girl in the Fireplace," "Silence in the Library"/"Forest of the Dead," or "The Beast Below" are much more character-driven, and some Moffat scripts such as "Blink," "The Time of Angels"/"Flesh and Stone," and "The Pandorica Opens"/"The Big Bang" are much more plot-driven.

But I don't think it's fair at all to say that Moffat's scripts lack humanity. I mean, heck, "The Pandorica Opens"/"The Big Bang" was, amongst other things, about a love so strong that it brought a man back from the dead and lasted for two thousand years. And I don't think it's at all reasonable to say that a script like "A Christmas Carol," which somehow manages to take the cliche of the Dickens story and infuse it with new energy and make us genuinely care about the mean old miser and watch as he retroactively falls in love and has his new/old love save the day with a Christmas son," can at all reasonably be said to lack humanity. Nothing so heartwarming lacks humanity! And all that's to say nothing of the heartbreak of "Silence in the Library" and "The Girl in the Fireplace."

What I do think is fair to say about Moffat's work is that Moffat's work doesn't wear its emotionality on its sleeves the way RTD's did. Moffat's work is a bit more emotionally subdued -- I don't want to say repressed, per se, but his stuff is definitely less openly emotionally expressive. A good indicator of that, I think, is Murray Gold's work under both showrunners. RTD would deliberately design his scripts to just let Gold go at it with big old sequences where Gold would just take over the episode for a bit -- the "Song of Freedom" sequence in "Journey's End," for instance, or the "Martha Triumphant" sequence as the Doctor went all Subverted!Jesus-y in "Last of the Time Lords," or the "Vale Decem" sequence in "The End of Time, Part Two."

Whereas Moffat has Gold work, too, but it's much more subtle, much less, "THIS IS SO EMOTIONAL"-y. "Madame de Pompadour" from "The Girl in the Fireplace," "Amy's Theme" playing over the sequence of the Doctor being captured, the TARDIS exploding, and Amy dying in "The Pandorica Opens," "I Remember You" playing as the TARDIS materializes at Amy and Rory's wedding reception. These are all really memorable sequences, but neither Gold's music, nor the emotionality of the sequence, takes over the narrative the way they would in an RTD script. In fact, "Abigail's Song" being used to save the day in "A Christmas Carol" is the first time that Moffat really allows either the emotionality of a sequence, or Gold's music, to really take over the narrative the way they routinely would under RTD.

Bottom line is, they're two contrasting emotional styles. One is big and bombastic and completely open and expressive about all the emotions it's having. One is more closed and subdued and not inclined to bash you over the head with what it's feeling. If RTD's style is epitomized by the Doctor yelling at the tops of his lungs when he loses Astrid in "Voyage of the Damned," Moffat's style is epitomized by the Doctor insisting that he's always alright when he loses River in "Forest of the Dead."

Personally, I love both styles. Though, honestly, I think the show works best when everything and everyone else is allowed to be big and bombastic with their emotions and the Doctor is a bit more closed off with his emotions -- a combination of the styles. But that's just me.

 

[TedShatner10]

Steven Moffat's "A Christmas Carol" was certainly not bland at all, but there was an element of blandness to parts of Season Five, however that seemed to be down to the new team of directors who appeared to be learning the ropes and building up their confidence, than to the actual scripting or story quality as such.

What ever you can say about Russell T. Davies, his take on the show was hugely successful and engaged with millions of people beyond the relatively small circle of hardcore fans of the old series, he seemed to be very successful in bringing NuWho up date, without losing its spirit, and his season formula has wisely not been tampered with by Steven Moffat.

While "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" were decidedly mediocre, a minority of people dislike RTD's tenure so-much that they felt that this derivative and badly acted Children in Need fanfilm was superior.

 

[Cutter John]

That's why Moffat's Who is so lacking in humanity.

Wow, how times change. Anyone else remember last year at this time when Moffet was the white knight riding in to save DW from the evil RTD?

So they built something that could withstand the destruction of the universe. But they themselves could not -- as evidenced by the Stone Daleks and Cybermen. Nevermind how human civilization could exist without stars.

Huh? Why would they have to worry about surviving when the whole point of putting the Doctor into the Pandorica was to prevent the universe from being destroyed.

 

[DWF]

Huh? Why would they have to worry about surviving when the whole point of putting the Doctor into the Pandorica was to prevent the universe from being destroyed.

That didn't actaully work though did it?

 

[Cutter John]

Huh? Why would they have to worry about surviving when the whole point of putting the Doctor into the Pandorica was to prevent the universe from being destroyed.

That didn't actaully work though did it?

It should have. But they didn't know about River, or the misterious someone who was controlling the Tardis.

 

[Lonemagpie]

That's why Moffat's Who is so lacking in humanity.

Wow, how times change. Anyone else remember last year at this time when Moffet was the white knight riding in to save DW from the evil RTD?

That's DR Who fandom all over- as soon as a new producer takes over, he becomes the thing that ruins the show/rapes everybody's childhood, etc.

 

[Starkers]

Moffat lacking humanity? Wow, that's just...well that's just odd. This is a guy whose entire body of work seems to revolve around love/emotion conquering all, from Press Gang to Coupling, Jekyll and Who. Of all the things I figured people might moan about him for, this wasn't one of them.

For all people are saying he's a plot based writer I'd kinda disagree, because his plots seem to be somewhat hole-y at times, his strength lies in character and dialogue for me. I think Sci is right, there is a difference in that RTD's emotion was in your face whilst Moffat is more subdued, but one might argue that Moffat's take is more typically British whilst RTD's is more American. I'd also say that, for me personally, Moffat's take on characters and their emotions seems a lot more realistic and complext than RTDs more simple and obvious take (and I don't neccesarily mean that in a bad way all the time, but there's something of a Princess Diana mourning fakeness to it)

If RTD was Tom Baker (loud, manic, gregarious but with occasional moments of thoughtfulness) then Moffat is Davison (quieter, subtler, more thoughtful but with occasional flashes of mania!)

 

[Shatnertage]

That's why Moffat's Who is so lacking in humanity.

Wow, how times change. Anyone else remember last year at this time when Moffet was the white knight riding in to save DW from the evil RTD?

That's DR Who fandom all over- as soon as a new producer takes over, he becomes the thing that ruins the show/rapes everybody's childhood, etc.

That's so strange, because for me Moffat and Matt Smith have reawakened a little bit of my child-like wonder at the Doctor. I really like the way the show's gone.

 

[The]

What I do think is fair to say about Moffat's work is that Moffat's work doesn't wear its emotionality on its sleeves the way RTD's did. Moffat's work is a bit more emotionally subdued

Agreed. I call it "emotional maturity". But, no matter how you label it, you're spot-on with the analysis.

Personally, I love both styles. Though, honestly, I think the show works best when everything and everyone else is allowed to be big and bombastic with their emotions and the Doctor is a bit more closed off with his emotions -- a combination of the styles. But that's just me.

Agreed again. I think that is exactly what the Classic Era lacked (emotionally-driven companions) and what the Modern Era also lacks (emotionally-controlled Doctor). With Moff's run, The Doc is much more old-school and subdued. However, as you point out, Moff tends to drag his companions into that framing, as well. I feel maybe a balance will be more obvious in the next season. Maybe not. Either way, I'm still on the Moffat Team 100%....

 

[Lonemagpie]

That's DR Who fandom all over- as soon as a new producer takes over, he becomes the thing that ruins the show/rapes everybody's childhood, etc.

That's so strange, because for me Moffat and Matt Smith have reawakened a little bit of my child-like wonder at the Doctor. I really like the way the show's gone.

Yeah, but that's cos you'e *a* fan, not fandom.

*A* fan is smart, and often cooler than public opinion would allow, but *fans* are wankers. True story.